Evidence – Delay in recording statements of witnesses – When not fatal – Appellant alongwith other co-accused was convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant inter alia contended that he was implicated in a false case as there was delay in recording of the statements of the witnesses: Held: Delay in recording witness statements is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case and the Court needs to examine such delay, if any, in the facts and circumstances of the particular case – Delay in recording witness statements, moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused – In the present case, the delay of 2-3 days in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses u/s.161, CrPC was thoroughly explained by the witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, to the effect that there were riots in the area – Thus, the Investigating Officer was involved in maintaining law and order in the affected area – No adverse inference can be drawn on this count – Furthermore, the presence of the appellant at the site of the incident and stabbing the deceased on the stomach repeatedly is established – Minor and immaterial inconsistencies/discrepancies do not harm the case of the prosecution – Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt – However, on facts, appellant given liberty to apply afresh for remission – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161, 164 – Remission. [Paras 20, 21, 30]
Penal Code, 1860 – Exceptions to s.300; s.304-I – Appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – He alternatively argued that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment after an altercation on the spot – Present case if covered under any of the exceptions to s.300:
Held: No – Appellant was armed with a knife – The intention to kill was very much present from the beginning – Every eyewitness stated that he inflicted the knife stabs on the deceased which could only have been possible if the knife was already with him indicating that he had come with prior intention to cause bodily injury by knife, a weapon sufficient to cause of death – Conviction cannot be converted from s.302, IPC to one u/s.304-I, IPC. [Para 23] Evidence – Informant-deceased’s sister not examined as a prosecution witness, but as a defence witness – Relevance, if any:
Held: It does not matter as to whether she was produced as a witness from the side of the prosecution or from the defence – The pertinent aspect is that she was before the Trial Court, and the prosecution, or the other accused, had the occasion and the opportunity to cross-examine her, which was availed of – Her testimony has been consistent with the version in the FIR and in sync with the other eye-witnesses. [Para 23]
Sentence/Sentencing – Remission of sentence – Law pertaining to – Discussed. [Paras 27-29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.